About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
't -- he shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were pl
. even though he has not been read his miranda rights because the government invoked a public safety exception which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused interrogation. joining me now for more on these developments is kent schafer, criminal defense attorney with buyers, schafer and deboard. god to s good to see you, sir. >> thank you. good afternoon. >> what's your take on this? why charge him with a weapons of mass destruction charge and not murder or conspiracy? >> well, actually, it's a much easier charge for the government to prove. in this case, they have to prove two things. that he used or possessed a weapon of mass destruction and that it resulted in somebody's death. by doing that, he'd be eligible for the federal death penalty. where under massachusetts state law, if they charged murder, he wouldn't be eligible for the death penalty. so virtually, you know, from a prosecutor's standpoint, it cuts out all the fluff. it's a very simple case. there's case law on top of case law saying that a bomb like this is defined as a weapon of mass destruction. so it
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2